General Forum

General Forum

  1. Joined
    12 Nov '05
    Moves
    140215
    22 Dec '15 15:24
    weird topic alert

    Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?
  2. Subscriberrookie54
    free tazer tickles..
    wildly content...
    Joined
    09 Mar '08
    Moves
    140740
    22 Dec '15 15:47
    i've been fascinated by prime numbers since i was a child...
    they don't seem to make pretty patterns, no matter how i lined them up, but, that single property of being unique, only divisible by itself and one (1), that i like...
  3. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7437
    22 Dec '15 17:17
    Originally posted by Silverstriker
    [b]weird topic alert

    Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?[/b]
    Ask <https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile>. They've featured quite a few of them.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    22 Dec '15 19:411 edit
    I like this formula: RU/18
  5. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    22 Dec '15 22:10
    Pythagorean triples less than 100:

    (3, 4, 5), (5, 12, 13), (7, 24, 25), (8, 15, 17), (9, 40, 41), (11, 60, 61), (12, 35, 37), (13, 84, 85), (16, 63, 65), (20, 21, 29), (28, 45, 53), (33, 56, 65), (36, 77, 85), (39, 80, 89), (48, 55, 73), (65, 72, 97)
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45692
    22 Dec '15 23:13
    Originally posted by Silverstriker
    [b]weird topic alert

    Im trying to make a list of fascinating numerical sequences as part of a display in a classroom. I like sequences such as Fibonacci and Triangular sequences but any different ones that people like on here?[/b]
    What age range are we talking about?
  7. Subscriberrookie54
    free tazer tickles..
    wildly content...
    Joined
    09 Mar '08
    Moves
    140740
    22 Dec '15 23:18
    Originally posted by moonbus
    Pythagorean triples less than 100:

    (3, 4, 5), (5, 12, 13), (7, 24, 25), (8, 15, 17), (9, 40, 41), (11, 60, 61), (12, 35, 37), (13, 84, 85), (16, 63, 65), (20, 21, 29), (28, 45, 53), (33, 56, 65), (36, 77, 85), (39, 80, 89), (48, 55, 73), (65, 72, 97)
    omg!!!
    you made me learn something i NEVER knew before!!!
    for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE i know


    very little... 😞 😞 😞

    https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/pythagorean-triples.html
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    23 Dec '15 10:39
    Originally posted by rookie54
    omg!!!
    you made me learn something i NEVER knew before!!!
    for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE i know


    very little... 😞 😞 😞

    https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/pythagorean-triples.html
    Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?

    One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
  9. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    23 Dec '15 13:25
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
    You go wonky if you try to think about different infinities as being bigger or smaller than other ones. Think of infinities as having characteristics, not 'sizes'; denumerability is an example of a characteristic.

    For example, the set of natural numbers (1,2,3,4) can be put into 1:1 correspondence with the set of even numbers (2,4,6,8), which means they are equivalently denumerable -- this is counterintuitive, because one thinks the set of even numbers must be smaller, since all the odd numbers are missing.
  10. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7437
    23 Dec '15 14:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I like this formula: RU/18
    Erm... what does it stand for?
  11. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7437
    23 Dec '15 14:28
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?

    One thing I wondered about. If Pathags are infinite but a smaller number of the full set of real numbers, doesn't that make the infinity of real numbers bigger than the infinity of Pathags?
    If by "Pathags" you mean Pythagorean triple numbers... those aren't real numbers in the first place. They're integers. Reveal Hidden Content
    OK, all integers are also real numbers... but you know what I mean
    So the infinity of real numbers is greater than the infinity of members from Pythagorean triples by definition: c is greater than aleph-zero.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    23 Dec '15 16:47
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    Erm... what does it stand for?
    So the guy asks the girl he just encounters: R U over 18?
  13. Subscriberrookie54
    free tazer tickles..
    wildly content...
    Joined
    09 Mar '08
    Moves
    140740
    23 Dec '15 16:57
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Nice site! Did I detect a tiny but noticeable thread of implied sarcasm here?
    normally, sarcasm is my goto post...
    in this case, i really learned a new thing in my life,
    and,
    while i cannot yet find a use for it (even in my shop) this is a wonderful bit of knowledge for me...

    thanks for asking...
  14. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    26 Dec '15 09:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So the guy asks the girl he just encounters: R U over 18?
    Slightly bumpish, but a famous line of Shakespeare can be rendered in symbolic logic: 2 B V 0 2 B

    Reveal Hidden Content
    To be or not (naught) to be.
  15. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7437
    27 Dec '15 20:40
    Originally posted by moonbus
    Slightly bumpish, but a famous line of Shakespeare can be rendered in symbolic logic: 2 B V 0 2 B

    [hidden]To be or not (naught) to be.[/hidden]
    Alternatively, 2b ∨ ¬2b .
Back to Top